1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, which cited this case, is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except that the following is added to the fifth, third, and subsequent contents of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this case is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the

The facts that the public official in charge of the plaintiff became aware of due to the characteristics of the state organization should be deemed to be the plaintiff, who is the State. Even if the public official who prepared the written review of deficits disposal knew of each of the donations of this case, the plaintiff had already known of D's gift by reporting the gift tax of the defendants and recognized the debts excess state of D in the process of deficits disposal, so at the latest at the time of deficits disposal, the plaintiff should be deemed to have been aware of D's fraudulent act at the time of deficits disposal. However, in the case of multiple business handling countries, the public official in charge of dealing with the debtor's fraudulent act does not recognize the existence of the fraudulent act and his intention, and only some of the elements of the fraudulent act were known in the course of performing the other duties, the public official in charge of the other duties cannot be deemed to have known of the existence of the fraudulent act and the intention of harm." Thus, the judgment of the court of first instance is justifiable, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the defendants.